Daily Archives: June 17, 2020

From yesterday's decision in Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, Inc. v. Kirchmeyer, written by Judge Jay Bybee and joined by Judges N. Randy Smith and Michael Melloy (8th Cir.). (I had filed an amicus brief in support of the School on behalf of Profs. Jane Bambauer, David Bernstein, Clay Calvert, and Mark Lemley, Dean Rodney Smolla, and myself; many thanks to UCLA School of Law students Tyler Hastings, Nicole Karatzas, and Brigid Mahoney, who worked on the brief):

Plaintiff Bob Smith is an experienced farrier and offers classes for those who would like to learn the art and craft of horseshoeing. Plaintiff Esteban Narez is experienced with horses and would like to enroll in Smith's classes to become a professional farrier. But because Narez does not have a high school diploma or GED, California's Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 prohibits him from enrolling in Smith's courses unless Narez first passes an examination prescribed by the U.S. Department of Education. {[Narez alleges that, b]ecause he works seven days a week, [he] does not want to forgo income to study for a test that has no relevance to horseshoeing.}

[I]f Smith were running a flight school or teaching golf, dancing, or contract bridge, Narez could enroll without restriction. We conclude that plaintiffs have stated a claim that the PPEA burdens their rights under the First Amendment. We therefore reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

The court concluded that the Act was a speech restriction:

In our view, California "is wrong that the only thing actually at issue in this litigation is conduct." Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010). Although the PPEA is a form of education licensing by the state, the First Amendment deprives the states of "unfettered power to reduce a group's First Amendment rights by simply imposing a licensing requirement." Nat'l Inst. of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (2019).

California points out that the Act regulates enrollment agreements. We agree, but when the Act is viewed in its entirety, it becomes clear that it controls more than contractual relations. It also regulates what kind of educational programs different institutions can offer to different students. Such a regulation squarely implicates the First Amendment. See Humanitarian Law Project (noting that a law which "may be described as directed at conduct" nevertheless implicates speech where "the conduct triggering coverage under the statute consists of communicating a message").

There can be little question that vocational training is speech protected by the First Amendment. Smith's "speech to [students] imparts a 'specific skill' or communicates advice derived from 'specialized knowledge.'" Humanitarian Law Project. "Facts, after all, are the beginning point for much of the speech that is most essential to advance human knowledge and to conduct human affairs." Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011). And, important to this case, "[a]n individual's right to speak is implicated when information he or she possesses is subjected to 'restraints on the way in which the information might be used' or disseminated." Id.

Furthermore, "the Constitution protects [Narez's] right to receive information and ideas." We have explained that when there is "a speaker who is willing to convey information," state "restriction[s] of the right to receive information" produce "actual injury" under the First Amendment. This right to receive information naturally extends to educational settings. Thus, the PPEA implicates the First Amendment by restricting the rights of both speakers (Smith) and would-be listeners (Narez).

The court recognized that the government is free to regulate businesses, including ones that provide education, in various ways (e.g., by imposing generally applicable tax laws or zoning laws). But heightened First Amendment scrutiny is required when, as in this case, such a regulation "differentiates between speech or speakers":

California's PPEA is riddled with exceptions to the ability-to-benefit rule, and the exceptions turn on one of two things: (1) the content of what is being taught, or (2) the identity of the speaker. Together these exceptions demonstrate that the Act does more than merely impose an incidental burden on speech: it "target[s] speech based on its communicative content."

An ability-to-benefit student (one not holding a high school diploma or a GED) may not enroll in a for-profit postsecondary educational institution without meeting the ability-to-benefit requirement. But the Act contains a number of exemptions that turn on the nature of what is being taught. If, for example, the course is "solely avocational or recreational," then the course is not covered by the ability-to-benefit requirement. If, however, the course's content is not "solely avocational or recreational," the restriction is triggered and covered institutions cannot enroll certain students.

The fact that the Act distinguishes between, say, golf lessons because they are "solely avocational or recreational," and horseshoeing lessons because they are not, is significanteven if we assume that the state has no particular interest in encouraging speech related to golf lessons or suppressing speech related to horseshoeing. See Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) ("[A] speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter."). Communication of factual information about horseshoeing surely qualifies as protected free speech the same as communication about golf. See Sorrell (explaining that conveying factual information constitutes "the creation and dissemination of information are speech within the meaning of the First Amendment"). The Act excepts other courses as well. See, e.g., Cal. Educ. Code 94874(d)(1) (exempting test preparation courses for standard examinations), (d)(2) (exempting test preparation courses for continuing education or license examinations), (j) (exempting flight instruction courses).

Second, the PPEA distinguishes between speakers. For example, the Act exempts "educational programs sponsored by a bona fide trade, business, professional, or fraternal organization, solely for that organization's membership." There is a similar exemption for "a bona fide organization, association, or council that offers preapprenticeship training programs" approved by the California Workforce Development Board. Id. 94874(b)(2)(A). There are exemptions for "[a] state-recognized professional licensing body that licenses persons in a particular profession, occupation, trade, or career field" or "[a] bona fide trade, business, or professional organization"; for nonprofit religious organizations {[an] exemption [that] comes with its own content-based restriction[,] "The instruction is limited to the principles of that religious organization ."}; for "[a]n institution that does not award degrees and that solely provides educational programs for total charges of [$2500 or less]"; for a "nonprofit public benefit corporation"; and for certain nonprofit "community-based organization[s]." id. 94874(k)(1).

The PPEA thus favors particular kinds of speech and particular speakers through an extensive set of exemptions. See Sorrell ("[The state's] law does not simply have an effect on speech, but is directed at certain content and is aimed at particular speakers."); U.S. v. Playboy Entm't Grp., Inc. (2000) ("Not only does [the statute] single out particular programming content for regulation, it also singles out particular programmers."). That means the PPEA necessarily disfavors all other speech and speakers. See Sorrell.

Sorrell is instructive in understanding these principles. There, the Supreme Court struck down a Vermont law that prohibited pharmacies from selling doctors' prescribing records to pharmaceutical companies, which the companies could then use to market prescription drugs to specific doctors. The statute, however, exempted entities that did not use the information for marketing purposes. And if the information somehow ended up in the hands of a pharmaceutical company, the statute proscribed that company's use of the information to market drugs to doctors absent certain circumstances. Pharmaceutical and data-mining companies challenged the law, claiming a violation of their First Amendment right to disseminate information.

Sorrell controls this case. The PPEA's operative impact is similar to that of the Vermont statute held unconstitutional in Sorrell. In both schemes, the speaker is the one being forbidden to act: private, for-profit postsecondary institutions here and pharmaceutical companies in Sorrell. And in each case, a violation occurs because of who the listener is and the message the speaker seeks to convey. In Sorrell, the listener was the doctor and the forbidden topic was the marketing of prescription drugs. Here, the listener is a student without a high-school education and the topic is vocational education. Thus, the PPEA's overall statutory scheme precludes certain would-be students from taking a course when the institution would otherwise admit such students "because of the topic discussed."

In sum, we agree with the plaintiffs that the PPEA "requires authorities to examine the contents of the message to see if a violation has occurred." Tschida v. Motl (9th Cir. 2019). We thus agree that the statutory scheme here not only implicates speech, but also engages in content discrimination. Moreover, because content discrimination is apparent, the district court should have applied some form of heightened scrutiny.

The court then remanded so the district court can resolve whether the law should be viewed as a restriction of "commercial speech" (which is subject to broad protection but not full protection) or as a restriction of fully protected speech:

The parties did not brief the question of whether the PPEA regulates commercial speech and, if so, what level of heightened scrutiny should apply here. We will leave it to the district court on remand to determine whether this case involves commercial or non-commercial speech, whether California must satisfy strict or intermediate scrutiny, and whether it can carry its burden under either standard. Cf. NILFA (declining to decide what heightened standard of review applies because the law "cannot survive even intermediate scrutiny"); Sorrell ("[T]he outcome [in this case] is the same whether a special commercial speech inquiry or a stricter form of judicial scrutiny is applied."). We simply hold that, because California's PPEA regulates the content of speech, plaintiffs have stated a First Amendment claim.

I think the school's educational programs are fully protected speech, not "commercial speech," even though they are sold like money (as are books, newspapers, and the like). See, e.g., Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952) ("It is urged that motion pictures do not fall within the First Amendment's aegis because their production, distribution, and exhibition is a large-scale business conducted for private profit. We cannot agree. That books, newspapers, and magazines are published and sold for profit does not prevent them from being a form of expression whose liberty is safeguarded by the First Amendment."). I expect the district court to so conclude on remand, or perhaps conclude that the law is unconstitutional regardless of whether the speech is treated as commercial.

Link:
"Vocational Training Is Speech Protected by the First Amendment" - Reason

Learn how the First Amendment protects your right to assemble and protest and how the government can hinder that right. USA TODAY

A professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington has recently sparked outrage with his words on Twitter, the latest educator to draw a rebuke from his own school.

Mike Adams, a professor of criminology at UNCW, said people who wear masks in public look like "fools," has called North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper a "fascist"(among other criticisms) for Cooper's response to the coronavirus pandemic, labeled women's studies a "nonessential major" and pushed for the separation of states from the county.

That was just in May.

Of the shutdowns caused by the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, Adams tweeted, This evening I ate pizza and drank beer with six guys at a six seat table top. I almost felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina."

Adams, who is white, ended the tweet with: "Massa Cooper, let my people go!

His tweets sparked severalChange.orgpetitions with thousands of signatures calling for Adams' removal from the university,andUNCW issued a statement calling Adams tweets vile.

Still, Adams has his job, UNCW confirmed to USA TODAY. Adams did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The university invoked the First Amendment in its statement, but added, These comments may be protected, but that is not an excuse for how vile they are. We stand firmly against these and all other expressions of hatred. We cannot and will not ignore them. The university is reviewing all options in terms of addressing the matter.

As it turns out, there arent many options for the university, according to First Amendment experts.

Adams isn't the first professor to generate backlash with tweets, either.

Last year, Indiana University didn't fire a professor whose tweets were called "vile and stupid" by the university's provost.Eric Rasmusen is still an IU professor, and he's still tweeting.

There are a few ways a professor can express his or her own opinions with protection from the First Amendment, Clay Calvert of theMarion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida told USA TODAY.

Even though his specific comments are racist and offensive, the larger subject matter is a matter of public concern, Calvert said, referring to Adams. Therefore, he is going to have some First Amendment protection, but its not unlimited.

Because Adams used his personal Twitter account, he has more First Amendment rights, Calvert said.

The first thing youd have to ask is, is the public employee speaking in his official job capacity or role? If so, then the First Amendment speech rights are very limited," Calvert said, adding, "If he had made a comment like that in the classroom, then the only way it would be protected would be if it was germane to the subject matter.

Calvert said the university could fire Adams a stronger statement than just condemning the tweets, he said.

"But the repercussions would be a lawsuit that (the university) would have to defend," Calvert said.

The Wilmington Star-Newsreported Adams has already sued UNCW once. In 2007, Adams filed a lawsuit saying he was denied a promotion when he spoke about his views, violating his First Amendment rights, the newspaper reported. After a court ruled in favor of Adams, UNCW appealed, then eventually settled the case.

David Hudson Jr., a fellow for the First Amendment at the Freedom Forum Institute, said a professors right to free speech is strong. Citizens, however, have the right to retain their own beliefs, he said.

Now, if those comments do reflect actual bias perpetrated against students, or the professor is violating generally applicable principles and discriminating against students specifically, thats another issue," Hudson said.

He added, "But, the First Amendment imposes pretty strict limitations on universities attempting to punish professors for controversial speech. After all, thats the point of the First Amendment its designed to protect offensive, obnoxious or even repugnant speech. The Supreme Court has termed that a bedrock principle of the First Amendment."

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/06/10/first-amendment-north-carolina-wilmington-professor-tweets/3173332001/

More:
A North Carolina professor who sparked outrage with his tweets still has his job. Why? It's called the First Amendment. - USA TODAY

Americans were horrified by the senseless killing of George Floyd, an unarmed black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer. At the same time, Americans were horrified by the indiscriminate looting and vandalism that accompanied the ensuing demonstrations in scores of cities across our nation.

Sadly, the destruction, as well as the violence directed at police forces attempting to maintain order and protect lives and property, were dismissed by many in the media as an unfortunate by-product of frustration and anger of protesters.

To be fair, many peaceful demonstrators, black and white, decried the violence and attempted to prevent more destruction.

There were reports that organized extremists instigated looting and participated in burning down stores, churches, and even a police station.

[In-person and virtual rallies held to condemn racism]

Unable to distinguish between legitimate protesters and criminal vandals and looters, police were put in an impossible situation, and, in some cases, ordered to stand down while lawlessness prevailed, and cities burned.

In our country, peaceful protest is protected. All citizens have a right to be heard. But the message of the protesters was undermined by the violence and mayhem that occurred.

The medias treatment of Black Lives Matter protests, often describing them as mostly peaceful, while labeling nearby rioting mobs as uprisings, was clearly at odds with what America witnessed on their television screens.

Even more stark was the medias selective reversal on COVID-19 mandates. Aided by politicians and talking-heads, organized BLM protests were enthusiastically endorsed throughout the media. In contrast, earlier public positions and protests by business-owners, churches and organizations advocating for opening up the nations devastated economy were roundly condemned.

[Peaceful Juneau vigil held for George Floyd]

Both groups were exercising their First Amendment right to protest unwarranted or unlawful government authority. Yet, the reaction to them by the public, local authorities and the media was often diametrically opposed.

Amid nation-wide coronavirus fears, citizens were publicly shamed for not wearing masks or observing social-distancing guidelines.

After months of complying with hunker-down orders, financially strapped shop owners were arrested or cited for re-opening non-essential businesses. Their crime: allowing employees to go back to work in order to support their families.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio directed the NYPD to arrest violators in large groups.

This is about stopping this disease and saving lives, he said.

Black Lives Matter protests were treated quite differently.

In a nation where funerals, church services and large gatherings were prohibited, the massive demonstrations of people across America were given a pass. Many demonstrators openly ignored health warnings to wear masks or exercise social-distancing.

Hollywood, predictably, joined the chorus of protesters and contributed money for funds to bail lawbreakers out of jail. There were few consequences for criminals the few arrested were released within hours of their arrest.

Two newspaper editors were forced to resign for daring to publish op-eds deploring the destruction or suggesting that federal troops be used to curb violence.

As protests continued, along with public memorial services for George Floyd, it became abundantly clear that

Covid-19 mandates werent meant to be applied to everyone just those not demonstrating for an acceptable cause. Governors and mayors across the country encouraged and joined the BLM protests all the while insisting that other large gatherings remain strictly forbidden for health reasons.

Just weeks before, Alaska shop owners objecting to health mandates were widely criticized for putting the lives of their fellow citizens at risk in the pursuit of profits.

Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, who joined peaceful protests, also thought lives were at risk, but not in the way you might think. During a recent community radio address, he elevated Black Lives Matter protesters to hero status by saying I see people who are risking their lives to protestin spite of a pandemic.

That comment diminishes the sacrifice of thousands of real heroes in our countrys history who risked and lost their lives defending the constitutional right of all Americans to protest.

The coronavirus doesnt distinguish between conservative and liberal protests. According to some, apparently our First Amendment rights do.

The complex and deep-seated issues facing our country wont be solved by quelling debate and limiting personal freedoms of those expressing opinions with which we disagree.

Win Gruening retired as the senior vice president in charge of business banking for Key Bank in 2012. He was born and raised in Juneau and is active in community affairs as a 30-plus year member of Juneau Downtown Rotary Club and has been involved in various local and statewide organizations. Columns, My Turns and Letters to the Editor represent the view of the author, not the view of the Juneau Empire. Have something to say? Heres how to submit a My Turn or letter.

Read the original here:
Opinion: 1st Amendment rights apparently only apply to the left - Juneau Empire

There are some measures officials can use to limit protests, and it's easy to accidentally tiptoe into legally murky territory if you don't know the specifics.

So before you go, read up.

Timothy Zick is a professor of Government and Citizenship at the College of William & Mary Law School. He specializes in constitutional law and the First Amendment, and he's written several books about both, including 2009's "Speech Out of Doors: Preserving First Amendment Liberties in Public Spaces."Emerson Sykes is a staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Technology and Privacy Project, who studies free speech protections under the First Amendment. Previously, he worked at the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law to protect free speech in Africa.

1. What are my rights as a protester?

The government can't stop you from peacefully protesting, but they can impose some restrictions on the time, place and manner of the protest -- for example, barring protesters from walking onto a public highway or instituting a curfew that affects when protests end, Sykes said.

They can't block a protest simply because of its content, though.

If protests are planned in advance, organizers may obtain a permit so law enforcement can block off public spaces for them to demonstrate, Sykes said.

The First Amendment does not continue to protect protests that escalate to violence or the destruction of private or public property, he said.

That's when law enforcement has the obligation to respond and deescalate threats of violence, he said.

2. Where can and can't I protest?

A slew of public spaces are OK for protests -- sidewalks, city parks, streets and other public forums are usually lawful, Sykes said.

Some states require you file a permit to block off streets, and the right to assembly doesn't give you the automatic right to march on a public highway, Zick said.

People can be arrested or cited for blocking passage, he said.

On private property, you don't have the right to assemble.

Zick called it the "no man's land" in terms of the First Amendment, and police can move you off the property and keep you from demonstrating there.

They may even have that right to move you even if you're on public property. Special rules apply to government buildings because protests may disrupt business going on inside, Sykes said.

If the protest was permitted, you should be allowed to stay where you are -- but leaving the permitted protest site may unintentionally lead you into prohibited places, he said.

3. Can police or local leaders tell us to disperse?

It depends, Sykes said: If a mayor pleads with people to go home, you have no legal obligation to comply.

If you stay on the street past a curfew -- or if you protest on private property -- you may be cited or arrested.

4. What can I record?

Different states have different rules about audio recording and sharing that without the consent of the people whose voices you recorded, but the visual portion of videos and photos are always protected by the First Amendment, Sykes said.

If you're interfering with legitimate police operations, they can ask you to move. It's best to videotape them from a safe distance.

Police can't ask you to give them your phone or forcibly confiscate it without a search warrant, which they would've needed to obtain from a judge, he said.

5. Someone took a picture of my face at a public protest. Is that allowed?

At a public protest in the United States, you consent to a photo just by being there. Anyone who photographs you protesting in a public place may have a right to use your image, and you may see images of yourself in the media or online, Zick said.

6. What should I pack to stay safe at a protest?

Pack light, Sykes said. He suggests you bring water and a snack at minimum. If you bring a bag, prepare for it to be searched.

In a pandemic, wearing a mask can keep you from breathing in droplets containing coronavirus. Coming within close contact of other protesters could expose you to their spit or sneezes, which may carry the coronavirus.

And if you fear you'll be arrested and will need legal help, memorize or write on your arm the number to a local or national law organization that could assist you in getting out of jail and handling your case afterward, Sykes said.

7. What can -- and can't -- police do during a protest?

It's the responsibility of police to protect your right to peaceful assembly.

They're also empowered to uphold law and order, which gives them broad authority to deescalate threats of violence how they see fit.

How they deescalate that violence depends on local laws and the circumstances under which they use them, which can be difficult to prove in court if you believe they used force unlawfully, Zick said.

Like Sykes said, police do not have the right to search your phone or personal devices without a warrant, which only a judge can grant them.

They also don't have permission to delete content from your phone, so if they tell you to delete a video you took or delete it themselves, they're in the wrong, he said.

8. What can I do if a police officer stops me?

Stay calm. Don't resist. Ask them if you're free to go after speaking with them, Sykes said. If they say yes, calmly walk away and rejoin the protest if it's safe to.

If they say no, and they detain you, don't resist and keep calm, Sykes said. Ask them what crime you're suspected of committing.

9. What can I do if I get arrested?

Some people get arrested intentionally as a form of civil disobedience. But whether or not you planned to get handcuffed, you shouldn't resist arrest, Sykes said.

It's the best chance you have to stay safe.

During your arrest, you can remain silent, as is your right, Sykes said.

In some states, police are permitted to know your name if they ask, but they don't have the right to know where you're from or your citizenship status, he said.

You can also ask for a lawyer -- remember that number you held onto for legal support.

If you're booked into jail, call a lawyer immediately, Sykes said.

Police can't listen in on your call if you're phoning a lawyer, but they can listen in if you're calling a friend or family member, so be aware, he said.

10. What can I do if I feel law enforcement or other officials violated my rights?

You can sue for civil rights violations.

Some protesters file large class-action suits that are occasionally successful, and sometimes authorities can pay damages when they decide litigation isn't worth it, Zick said.

But qualified immunity can shield officers from civil liability if they didn't violate a clearly established law, he said.

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that protects police officers accused of interfering with constitutional rights from being liable unless they violated a clearly established and defined law.

The lines are blurred at protests of what police are allowed to do and what constitutes overreaching, so "clearly established" constitutional rights are difficult to determine, Zick said.

In this way, many police officers are protected by qualified immunity, Sykes said.

11. Can my workplace fire me if they find out I attended a protest?

That depends on the contract you made with your employer when you were hired, but yes, it's possible, Sykes said.

You have stronger constitutional protections for what you do outside of work, but depending on what you agreed on when you were hired, a company may be able to terminate your employment, he said.

See the original post:
If you're planning to take part in protests, know your rights. Read this. - CNN

Conner Drigotas Published 11:00 p.m. ET June 11, 2020

As Michigan reaches almost two weeks of largely nonviolent protests, trouble is brewing at the federal level that could impact the civil liberties of citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

As demonstrations unfolded across America following the killing of George Floyd, President Donald Trump said hed label Antifa a terrorist organization. Despite uncertainty as to what authority this declaration-by-tweet carries, the Department of Justicemoved to take action. According to a press release put out the same day by Attorney General William Barr, Federal law enforcement actions will be directed at apprehending and charging Antifa leadership.

While anti-protest factions may celebrate this move now, Barrs broad policy is a danger to the First Amendment promises of free speech and free assembly for everyone. Indeed, laws like the Patriot Act remove key civil rights protections for anyone defined as a terrorist, justly or otherwise. Even now, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been given new powers to begin surveillance of protestors.

President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable discussion in the Cabinet Room at the White House, Wednesday, June 10, 2020, in Washington.(Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP)

The Barr Memorandum also leaves open how the Justice Department may choose to define membership in what is clearly a grassroots effort. The civil rights implications are significant, and according to some, Trumps declaration may not be legally binding. It may take years to get a court ruling, but in the meantime, Trumps declaration seems likely to fan the flames.

The impact of this executive power could also be unpleasant for Conservatives. Outspoken groups like the Tea Party, regional militia groups, or local organizations that wouldnt support a liberal presidents agenda may find themselves under fire, corralled, and imprisoned under this broad order. When a left-leaning future president is running the White House, these precedents could be used in the same irresponsible fashion. Domestic terrorism is poorly defined, leaving discretion to unelected bureaucrats.

Arresting and prosecuting those who see chaos as an opportunity to loot and destroy private property is one thing. In this case, however, the federal government is also being opportunistic, expanding powers at a moment where checking overreach is essential. The protests are, in many ways, protesting overreaching government power, albeit channeled through police departments. The American people need less big brother and more local control to effectively quell violence and address issues of police misconduct. We wont heal the cultural divide by empowering a more hierarchical power structure. If a president can define American citizens as terrorists via tweet, making them felons, we are all at risk of losing our rights.

Some may think this analysis is overdramatic. The best-case scenario is that those critics are correct. History, however, has shown that silencing opposition is a typical step toward authoritarianism. In an attempt to bring order, extensive government powers have become law under the guise of restoring order during times of unrest.

The voices on the right and left seem to be speaking different languages. Something is lost in translation between the conservative drive for law-and-order and the lefts push for justice and equality. Small-government conservatives are a rarity right now, but that voice is needed. We need principles, not politics, to reign in the power of the growing state. Both sides of the ideological spectrum should work together to address the growing concerns about police militarization.

Some conservatives are rightly questioning the police practices that are foundational to the modern conception of law and order. But not enough, and not in the highest levels of government, where policy is set. This is a quintessential example of how government grows when partisan politics run the system. As one party seeks to make a power play against its opposition, shortsighted policy making enshrines governmental powers long past the current moment. Trump shouldnt have this power, nor should anyone else.

If the goal is to improve our culture, pursue a better future for all people, and seek justice when systemic violence occurs, the answer is, as it has always been, more liberty and less government.

Conner Drigotas is the director of communications and development at a national law firm and is a contributor to Young Voices, a nonprofit providing pro bono media placement services to young conservative writers. He lives inBethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Read or Share this story: https://www.detroitnews.com/story/opinion/2020/06/12/opinion-trumps-antifa-crackdown-could-cause-trouble/5337478002/

View post:
Opinion: Trump's Antifa crackdown treads on First Amendment - The Detroit News